This hand sucks (lc)

$3/$5 NLHE $300 buy-in. Table is playing nice and loose/passive. Most pots aren't raised pre-flop.

BB is really loose and passive. Way over-plays strong hands with absurd bets. Seen shoving flop with nuts, opening AA and JJ for $100 from EP, etc. We both have just over $400.

I have Tens UTG and call, 2 players limp behind.

~$20 in the pot.
Flop is :Ac: :Qh: :Ts:

Checked around because I suck at life.

Turn is :2c:

BB leads for $20, I raise to $60, folded around, BB quickly announces that he's all-in for just over $400 or so. He's happy and I really don't think he's bluffing. How sick is it that I want to fold?

Wouldn't he do this with 2-pair? What about something like KcQc/QcJc? Is he so passive that he doesn't even raise AA/QQ preflop? I can't see a fold here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

What about something like KcQc/QcJc? Is he so passive that he doesn't even raise AA/QQ preflop? I can't see a fold here.

---

I expect him to raise AA/QQ almost always for some silly amount. He's also been seen raising broadways out of the blinds once with a callable bet. He clearly has 2 worse than random cards going into his post-flop action that narrows down his range.

He has 22... so instacall and laugh?

(beginner)
We're saying passive, but AQ seems unrealistic. Maybe AT or QT are possible but really - I'm reading him solidly on 22.

Way overplays strong hands?

After the PF limp he'd expect people with generally lowish ranges. The flop check suggests that noone really has anything, or are maybe sitting in with a pocket or bottom pair or happy to get free cards on their drawing hands.

I think he's managed to talk himself out of considering TT, QQ or AA as possible hands for anyone else (maybe because of the limping) - or KJ (maybe expects a value bet on flop), and figure some may have nothing, a drawing hand or two pair.

When the 2 comes and completes a set he appears happy - maybe because he beats the two pair that he thinks is the best hand he can be up against.

The push is a bit hard to understand, but it could be that he expects people to know that they're crushed and to just fold to any bet. If they're folding to any bet he may as well just be a bully about it and throw his chips around - and if the two-pair guy thinks he's bluffing he's in for a surprise!

It's certainly not good poker from him, and I suck at hand reading but I put him on 22 80% or more of the time here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erpel

It's certainly not good poker from him, and I suck at hand reading but I put him on 22 80% or more of the time here.

---

Agree that 22 is a possible holding, but 80% just shows that you suck at counting combinations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erpel

It's certainly not good poker from him, and I suck at hand reading but I put him on 22 80% or more of the time here.

---

Agree that 22 is a possible holding, but 80% just shows that you suck at counting combinations.

---

While I can count 3 combinations of 22 and 27 combinations of AQ, AT and QT as an example I think he, given your description and reads, would play 22 this way on the flop 90% of the time and the turn maybe 50-70% of the time (the rest of the time wisely not pushing all in on the turn), he would play AQ, AT and QT this way on the turn much less than 10% of the time. He would have bet AQ, AT and QT already on the flop at least 50% of the time. 80% is a guesstimate pulled out of the air, but it was based on a fair idea of which combinations were possible and a quick assessment of how likely he is to make this specific play when he has arrived at the turn with those holdings.

I can put AA in his range also. He's less than 1% likely to have played AA this way pre-flop, maybe as much as 20% likely to have played AA this way on the flop, given his preference for overbetting strong hands, but had he gotten to the turn with AA, he's certainly 80-90% likely to have pushed. That doesn't make AA a significant percentage of his potential holdings.

I'm commenting to learn and be corrected. What am I overlooking?

Edit note: Saying less than 1% likely to play AA this way pre-flop is probably too strong. On second thought I guess he realistically has maybe as much as 10% chance to limp AA or QQ pre-flop and 20ish% on the flop as a slowplay type of play. That puts him on the turn in this way 2% of the time that he has AA and 2% for QQ and about 80% for 22. Even if we tune down the 22 likelihood of playing the turn this way and increase the likelihood for AA and QQ to 2.5 times as likely (each) to make this exact play we're still 8 times as likely to be looking at 22 as either AA or QQ. These hands of course have the same amount of possible combinations.

I can invent realistic looking probabilities for this action pattern with AA, QQ, AQ, AT, QT and 22 on pre-flop, flop and turn bet that adds up to him being 80% likely to hold 22 if I really want to, or I could invent a slightly different set of numbers that add up to 50% likely to hold 22 instead. I'm not going to do that, but simply restate that it's my considered and possibly wrong BEGINNER opinion that I'm expecting 22 here 80% of the time or more.

Ok, I guess the main hand I'm overlooking is an A2 type hand (maybe Q2 or T2, but those are less likely). If that's a possible I can realistically see the probability of 22 going down. But AA and QQ are extremely unlikely regardless.

Edit note 2: Yeah I suck. Forget me. KJ 16 combinations, each of which almost as likely to have been played this way as any 22 combination. Some chance of being bet on flop, but slowplay not impossible.

How could you fold that Fnord?

HOW? You're behind KJ, and AA/QQ, the last two highly unlikely. You're ahead of the multitude of 2pr, TP/gutshot/bottom set hands he could be playing like this. Sure you've seen him go crazy with da nuts before, but he can't ONLY play the nuts like that. How good of a read did you have on him (how many times did you see him push & have the nuts?).

Also, why limp TT UTG with loose passives around? It's got overpair value vs their donk-asses, no?

Also, why suck at life with the flop check? Surely this flop is likely to hit one of the two station's ace rag or whatever crap they've limped.

I dunno...maybe I'm the true payoff bitch...

Yeah the possibility of something silly or a hand like A2/K2 tipped me to a call. I tanked a good 60 seconds or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

Also, why limp TT UTG with loose passives around? It's got overpair value vs their donk-asses, no?

---

We could talk about that if you'd like. With this table dynamic, I like never raising from EP in an unopened pot. Once someone limps or I hit the Hi-Jack seat, the gloves come off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

Also, why suck at life with the flop check? Surely this flop is likely to hit one of the two station's ace rag or whatever crap they've limped.

---

Flop play was a mistake, I made a poor, fast decision probably influenced by all the weak play around the table. Funny thing is that if I bet this flop I never get a chance to get away from this hand (although, really why would I want to.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

Also, why limp TT UTG with loose passives around? It's got overpair value vs their donk-asses, no?

---

We could talk about that if you'd like. With this table dynamic, I like never raising from EP in an unopened pot. Once someone limps or I hit the Hi-Jack seat, the gloves come off.

---

I would like to talk about that actually. Going to be hitting up the casino soon, so I need a crash course in how to adapt my tagg online style to a sea of looooooose passives / tv poker junkies. I open raise 88+ from all positions, even sometimes 22+...

So you never open raise in EP? Even with AK/KK+? Isn't isolation with big hands even more important in very loose passive games? And if KK+, then why not TT+?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

I would like to talk about that actually. Going to be hitting up the casino soon, so I need a crash course in how to adapt my tagg online style to a sea of looooooose passives / tv poker junkies. I open raise 88+ from all positions, even sometimes 22+...

So you never open raise in EP? Even with AK/KK+? Isn't isolation with big hands even more important in very loose passive games? And if KK+, then why not TT+?

---

So the key is that it's a somewhat friendly loose/passive game and I'm playing the tight image (different ballgame if you like to play LAgg, I'm more Harrington-like in my approach.) Also with a $300 buy-in and usually a few $200 stacks, if I raise a small pair UTG I probably can't call a re-raise. If the money was deeper and raised pots the norm (Vegas), different story.

My UTG range in these games is 22-AA, AQ+, stronger suited broadways and perhaps some other stuff if I feel like it. Most of that range wants to see a flop cheap. I lose value on AK/QQ+ playing like this, but that's the minority of my range.

By just limping from EP I validate my opponent's biggest mistake, playing weak hands out of position and then calling raises with them. Seeing "good players" always raising suggests maybe they should too.

A lot of my opponents make just plain aweful bet sizing, balancing and information leakage mistakes. This lets me play a good hand and gather imformation as to what the texture of the hand is before lots of money gets into the pot. At worst my limps are a small mistakes in a game where my opponents are making huge ones.

Finally, it provides contrast from when I do raise (a wider range than they would think) from late position and stealing out of the blinds. The added credibility keeps my opponent in line and passive when I get aggressive. Once again, I'm aiming to re-enforce and play to the mistakes they're already making.

Once in a while I limp AA/KK UTG and have to play a multi-way pot were I can't just stick it in. I can deal with that. When I look at PT numbers, EP isn't where the big money is made. One of the first leaks I had to fix was to tighten up and stop naked aggression from EP because I was actually losing money there. This approach certainly doesn't lose money and I depend on my position and isolation plays to bring home the real money.

Like I said, once someone limps the gloves come off because a lot of these guys commit to seeing a flop too often.

Ok I'm an idiot and this is another long post, so read on only for amusement value.

I proved myself a total donk in my previous posts by focusing on the probability of him holding one or another of the hands that the Hero beats while completely forgetting the very likely hands that beat the Hero. I will here try to actually perform the calculation that I was suggesting earlier that one could do, but without overlooking KJ.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, while I can see AA in this situation, it is unlikely to have been played in this way. In this post I will explore all holdings that he could have made the all-in re-raise with (assuming no bluff and a minimum of two-pair) and consider for each how likely it is that it will have played through in that way. To this end I will for each possible holding make some assumptions regarding the chance of him taking these exact actions: Pre-flop limp %, Flop check %, Turn bet % and Turn re-raise AI % - and use those probabilities to weight the card combinations for that holding.

22 - card combinations: 3
PF Limp%: 95%
Flop check%: 95%
Turn bet%: 95%
Turn all-in%: 90%
Weighted combinations: 2.315

AA - card combinations: 3
PF Limp%: 10%
Flop check%: 10%
Turn bet%: 95%
Turn all-in%: 90%
Weighted combinations: 0.026

QQ - card combinations: 3
PF Limp%: 10%
Flop check%: 10%
Turn bet%: 95%
Turn all-in%: 90%
Weighted combinations: 0.026

AQ - card combinations: 9
PF Limp%: 50%
Flop check%: 10%
Turn bet%: 95%
Turn all-in%: 50%
Weighted combinations: 0.213

AT - card combinations: 3
PF Limp%: 70%
Flop check%: 10%
Turn bet%: 95%
Turn all-in%: 50%
Weighted combinations: 0.010

QT - card combinations: 3
PF Limp%: 90%
Flop check%: 10%
Turn bet%: 95%
Turn all-in%: 50%
Weighted combinations: 0.128

A2 - card combinations: 9
PF Limp%: 50%
Flop check%: 10%
Turn bet%: 95%
Turn all-in%: 50%
Weighted combinations: 0.213

Q2 - card combinations: 9
PF Limp%: 30%
Flop check%: 10%
Turn bet%: 95%
Turn all-in%: 50%
Weighted combinations: 0.128

T2 - card combinations: 3
PF Limp%: 10%
Flop check%: 10%
Turn bet%: 95%
Turn all-in%: 50%
Weighted combinations: 0.014

KJ - card combinations: 16
PF Limp%: 90%
Flop check%: 60%
Turn bet%: 95%
Turn all-in%: 95%
Weighted combinations: 7.798

Total weighted combinations: (22) 2.315 + (AA) 0.026 + (QQ) 0.026 + (AQ) 0.213 + (AT) 0.010 + (QT) 0.128 + (A2) 0.213 + (Q2) 0.128 + (T2) 0.014 + (KJ) 7.798 = 10.871

Hero is ahead of:
22: 21.30%
AQ: 1.96%
AT: 0.09%
QT: 1.18%
A2: 1.96%
Q2: 1.18%
T2: 0.13%
Total: 27.79%

Hero is behind:
AA: 0.24%
QQ: 0.24%
KJ: 71.73%
Total 72.21%

Required pot odds (ignoring outs for river improving either Hero or Villain): 2.6 to 1
Actual pot odds (assming effective $400 stacks): $335 to win $475 - effective 1.42 to 1 - Hero would need to be ahead of 41.5% of the Villain's range for a call to be profitable.

Problematic assumptions and their impact on calculations:
I've assumed 50% for all two-pair hands to make the all-in raise. Maybe I should have used higher all-in ranges for two-pair hands.
KJ I put at 60% to check on the flop. This is assuming a slowplay of the nuts. I don't put it higher as we're reading him as someone who likes to bet big hands. If he really really likes to play big hands and rarely slowplays this could greatly reduce the probability of KJ in his range.

For this to be a complete analysis I would have to go on and consider for each possible holding how many outs Hero has to beat a hand when behind and how many outs Villain has to beat a hand when behind, but I think I'll stop it here. That said, it should probably be mentioned that Hero has 10 clean outs to outdraw KJ (3 aces, 3 queens, 3 twos, 1 ten), where Villain with 22 only has 1 out to outdraw Hero.

Once I stop overlooking KJ and consider the chance of the Villain playing this exact way with each of his possible holdings a fold doesn't seem like too terrible a play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

So the key is that it's a somewhat friendly loose/passive game and I'm playing the tight image (different ballgame if you like to play LAgg, I'm more Harrington-like in my approach.) Also with a $300 buy-in and usually a few $200 stacks, if I raise a small pair UTG I probably can't call a re-raise. If the money was deeper and raised pots the norm (Vegas), different story.

My UTG range in these games is 22-AA, AQ+, stronger suited broadways and perhaps some other stuff if I feel like it. Most of that range wants to see a flop cheap. I lose value on AK/QQ+ playing like this, but that's the minority of my range.

By just limping from EP I validate my opponent's biggest mistake, playing weak hands out of position and then calling raises with them. Seeing "good players" always raising suggests maybe they should too.

A lot of my opponents make just plain aweful bet sizing, balancing and information leakage mistakes. This lets me play a good hand and gather imformation as to what the texture of the hand is before lots of money gets into the pot. At worst my limps are a small mistakes in a game where my opponents are making huge ones.

Finally, it provides contrast from when I do raise (a wider range than they would think) from late position and stealing out of the blinds. The added credibility keeps my opponent in line and passive when I get aggressive. Once again, I'm aiming to re-enforce and play to the mistakes they're already making.

Once in a while I limp AA/KK UTG and have to play a multi-way pot were I can't just stick it in. I can deal with that. When I look at PT numbers, EP isn't where the big money is made. One of the first leaks I had to fix was to tighten up and stop naked aggression from EP because I was actually losing money there. This approach certainly doesn't lose money and I depend on my position and isolation plays to bring home the real money.

Like I said, once someone limps the gloves come off because a lot of these guys commit to seeing a flop too often.

---

That's an interesting approach, and thinking on a deeper level than I currently am about the game... This is similar (or identical) to when sklansky talks about trading your small mistakes for your opponent's big ones (on later, expensive streets), right?

Basically you're so confident in your postflop game that you're ok with some preflop blunders to keep the game loose passive...

I'm not nearly as experienced as you, I'd consider myself maybe a beginner-intermediate online grinder who's getting better at first level thinking vs 0th level thinking players, and am more accurately putting people on ranges postflop... Would you recommend this approach to someone like me? I guess the answer depends on how confident in my ability to outplay loose passives postflop, and I'm probably more confident vs loose passives than I am any other type of player.

Live, how often do you find loose passives size their bets relative to their hand strength? Online I find that like 75% of them do, and will assume that they do unless they give me reason to believe otherwise...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

Would you recommend this approach to someone like me?

---

if you are talking about for online play then answer is def. no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

Would you recommend this approach to someone like me?

---

if you are talking about for online play then answer is def. no

---

No, I'm not planning on changing my multi-tabling tagg game online, I'm planning on starting to play more live though.

I already play some friendly home games full of loose passives and I can see the benefit in cutting out some of my raise/fold strictness...

So why do you limp aces UTG if you think no one will raise behind you? Would it be too obvious? Personally I'd rather get the money in now and avoid a certain overpair OOP in a multiway pot, praying that some donk's T6 didn't make tens up on the flop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigslikk

So why do you limp aces UTG if you think no one will raise behind you? Would it be too obvious?

---

Sometimes I get raised and get to play a really big pot. Sometimes I don't. As for the T6 two pair problem, it's a lot easier to me to read hand strength from these guys when I'm not blasting every street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

I would like to talk about that actually. Going to be hitting up the casino soon, so I need a crash course in how to adapt my tagg online style to a sea of looooooose passives / tv poker junkies. I open raise 88+ from all positions, even sometimes 22+...

So you never open raise in EP? Even with AK/KK+? Isn't isolation with big hands even more important in very loose passive games? And if KK+, then why not TT+?

---

So the key is that it's a somewhat friendly loose/passive game and I'm playing the tight image (different ballgame if you like to play LAgg, I'm more Harrington-like in my approach.) Also with a $300 buy-in and usually a few $200 stacks, if I raise a small pair UTG I probably can't call a re-raise. If the money was deeper and raised pots the norm (Vegas), different story.

My UTG range in these games is 22-AA, AQ+, stronger suited broadways and perhaps some other stuff if I feel like it. Most of that range wants to see a flop cheap. I lose value on AK/QQ+ playing like this, but that's the minority of my range.

By just limping from EP I validate my opponent's biggest mistake, playing weak hands out of position and then calling raises with them. Seeing "good players" always raising suggests maybe they should too.

A lot of my opponents make just plain aweful bet sizing, balancing and information leakage mistakes. This lets me play a good hand and gather imformation as to what the texture of the hand is before lots of money gets into the pot. At worst my limps are a small mistakes in a game where my opponents are making huge ones.

Finally, it provides contrast from when I do raise (a wider range than they would think) from late position and stealing out of the blinds. The added credibility keeps my opponent in line and passive when I get aggressive. Once again, I'm aiming to re-enforce and play to the mistakes they're already making.

Once in a while I limp AA/KK UTG and have to play a multi-way pot were I can't just stick it in. I can deal with that. When I look at PT numbers, EP isn't where the big money is made. One of the first leaks I had to fix was to tighten up and stop naked aggression from EP because I was actually losing money there. This approach certainly doesn't lose money and I depend on my position and isolation plays to bring home the real money.

Like I said, once someone limps the gloves come off because a lot of these guys commit to seeing a flop too often.

---

this is gold dust.
Fnord, can laggs previal in a live game? The one im to visit soon is fll of taggy opponents. Obviously ill adapt but is it just about playing better or can they really be exploited fully?

LAGG then adapt is a viable counter to a taggy field, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Fnord, can laggs previal in a live game?

---

Certainly! Most players see too many flops and peel too much. Unless the rake is oppressive, it's a pretty ideal environment for LAgging it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

LAGG then adapt is a viable counter to a taggy field, no?

---

You're way too focused on pre-flop. Playing more hands pre-flop isn't the counter to a TAgg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

LAGG then adapt is a viable counter to a taggy field, no?

---

You're way too focused on pre-flop. Playing more hands pre-flop isn't the counter to a TAgg.

---

I didn't mean just lagg preflop. lots of c-betting, double-barreling until the tags catch on, then only trap em' with premium hands & hope you get something before they noticed you've adapted.

Pretty much. A TAgg is just a guy who plays pretty snug pre-flop and bets the flop a lot. There is a lot of value if you can find a read deeper than that.